[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6612761,"mediaKeyId","2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66","parentId",2887594,"title","House votes to let state superintendent enforce curriculum standards; debate centers on parental opt‑outs and local control","audioSeconds",178,"startMs",12464000,"endMs",12642000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66&start=12464&end=12642","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66/thumbnail_12464000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612761/Maryland/House-votes-to-let-state-superintendent-enforce-curriculum-standards-debate-centers-on-parental-optouts-and-local-control","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612761-4bae738f5f0fd436dfafc3ccb6219753/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178698&Signature=gHiau1KFBCI0Iynq6lIX95b-tpeocPHitDiCLm~HByl242kW7HgmAvnt0DU7nCo3RQEQKF6dL7UYdEcfGtalXgjXVmNbkcl1qACzm4SpenSWcYJIt9nDCQSn8c9XooOPm3x6yZHy8xsmvJvCM1Gl1V2UpqI1uc13BDKCuWNnciFY5BDwNoBEU1FlJF5SKZ3Rwp6X5uDAhtwkA07LgqaHIN4aLRTnCWG0pTP7XRH~udMRZ5B~F3kpsG9R1gRYcoauOdW69jPClFjglwjQH~Ky0LTxpgaAPVSEXdLriFLelPhhsyEqyBbE~o7mIjrIKWzpDAFnsqUQ6CyuP95v-jI13w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - House","date","2025-04-05T19:52:17.917Z","article","The House approved a measure that codifies enforcement steps the State Board of Education and the state superintendent may use when local education agencies do not follow state curriculum frameworks. The Senate amendments broadened and clarified the statute; the House concurred.

The committee chair explained the bill creates a due‑process procedure: when the state identifies an LEA failing to follow state curriculum guidelines, the jurisdiction has an opportunity to cure the deficiency, submit a corrective action plan and work with the superintendent. If it does not cure deficiencies, funds may be withheld. \"This creates an actual due process procedure whereby each county and city has to follow the state regulation and curriculum guidelines,\" the chair said.

Multiple delegates expressed concern the bill shifts curriculum control to the state, narrowing local discretion. Questions focused on whether parents could still opt their children out of family‑life or human‑sexuality instruction; the chair said opt‑outs that already exist in health curriculum guidance remain in place, and parents can opt out of the family‑life component (for example, family life and human sexuality lessons) where those opt‑outs are provided in current guidance.

Other members argued the change would escalate disputes to the state level and could create legal challenges over free‑speech and parental rights. The House adopted the Senate amendments and passed the bill on third reading.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session, 4/5/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The House concurred with Senate amendments that codify a process for the state superintendent to require corrective action and withhold funds if local boards fail to follow state curriculum frameworks; debate included whether the bill removes local control and how family‑life opt‑outs are handled.","taxTitle","HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15055,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612765,"House passes energy package after hours of debate over reliability, costs and siting rules",1060,5058000,6118000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66&start=5058&end=6118","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66/thumbnail_5058000.jpg","/articles/6612765/Maryland/House-passes-energy-package-after-hours-of-debate-over-reliability-costs-and-siting-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612765-5e8bd5d1424b7d28986b0285bc39094a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178698&Signature=HlcFgqgdc4Uu8EzQaD9jRc0-ytR9rs6iSye39HqIVnnuiPk~ct5u~FGBnlX9ye93Y~0CGwGhVFjBk8edaMSvEczNBJFd3MoJGdw4oqeMEVxLoxtSQgjgCxQmfOXRdLOnNzANEPcDuYLaQpoAHsqBzVPlDIiIUeg-pvwl0GNu5Q23tH6cQSz3rG0ueIMFuhDXsdUMTZabdnUTUQ49IizCH1sVHmrpf-uBgh04mo4-tmoEd~VJH3MGDlRSsWMzvBBtLrZ2DV6wv-x3fVfi5E3-fXIGK0ZffPQTuXhHDz5-BOH4~UxZwGJEPEC~2yHGuFRTMoute4iiCPCKtTaXHbJ6ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House passed a multi‑bill energy package addressing electric and gas emissions reductions, generation siting, and strategic energy planning after extended debate that ranged from policy‑level defense of the bills to detailed questions about local impacts, workforce and ratepayer costs.

Supporters described the package as a set of reforms intended to control utility costs, improve long‑term planning and accelerate battery storage and dispatchable generation. A sponsor argued the bills will \"save hundreds of millions of dollars for our ratepayers\" over time by reining in certain reconciliation mechanisms, emphasizing in‑house labor and revised multi‑year rate plan rules to prevent utilities from shifting costs to customers.

Opponents said the state is an \"energy desert\" because past policies discouraged traditional generation and warned the reforms would not overcome constraints in transmission and siting; several delegates from Eastern Shore and rural counties argued the renewable siting provisions would pressure farmland and invoked concerns about local control, eminent domain and the impact on agriculture and the poultry supply chain.

Other questions focused on specific components: treatment of waste‑to‑energy in the renewable portfolio standard, sales tax exemptions for battery storage, and the statutory funding and cost of a newly created strategic energy planning office. The committee reported the planning office roughly at $5 million annually and argued its modeling and independent analysis would help the state plan generation and transmission for the next 20 years.

Votes recorded on the floor show the bills passed with the constitutional majority. The floor recorded various roll counts: for one bill the clerk announced \"There being 97 votes in the affirmative\" (recorded on the floor) and similar tallies followed for related measures. Members on all sides said staff should continue work on implementation details.

The package advances state policy to speed siting and planning for new generation and storage while attempting to add consumer protections; the debate highlighted competing priorities over local land use, energy reliability and ratepayer costs.","The House approved a three‑bill energy package—targeting emissions reductions, generation siting, and strategic planning—after extended floor debate over reliability, costs to ratepayers, local control, and agricultural land use; votes carried by narrow margins in some cases.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612767,"House adopts committee changes to producer responsibility bill for packaging and paper products",147,3867000,4014000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66&start=3867&end=4014","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66/thumbnail_3867000.jpg","/articles/6612767/Maryland/House-adopts-committee-changes-to-producer-responsibility-bill-for-packaging-and-paper-products","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612767-3b759a883626206cd83c9c05540885ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178698&Signature=Z-2iaQhY2tAoLnV6x6rpz6IF2BsLinR6ZTxMD0aCwiUA5tgbTnasTbAGA4YnDUn~Vd7jHHP8wEOTDUY5IwoxP50PZWIQWTdE6GtFl0ouMdSVpTQ7NwIZcXzmCJREaiwf-vAHYTB1hVXEeCZ36sj~PHUwZT5LecJDQ89xwvGvp8SGQGcKqGbIo32slIcXPgk8Bm9yd6zef01kX3SVrKL1~QGSmTbkzgZhx7BwEUJ8E848dn~plB-GME11QqwpIbdfRzW5JNlII9h9d2GrRnXz5Zwu7yeSS3kvQwEjPFb~0wufdkJDB1S2pmE2fz84S9CEDIb76IZiehWxncTO6s63Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House adopted committee amendments to legislation establishing an extended producer responsibility program for packaging and paper products, which would require producers to register, fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO) and underwrite program costs for collection and recycling.

The floor leader, explaining the amendments, said the bill establishes an EPR program and makes technical clarifications, \"add[ing] language to ensure that the bill would not preclude a bottle deposit program in the state, require the annual registration fee to cover, as necessary, the cost of developing and implementing program regulations, and clarify that a plan's methodology for reimbursement rates for covered services, for covered materials is exclusive of exempt producers.\"

Members asked whether similar programs operate elsewhere. The floor leader said Canadian provinces and some U.S. states have pursued EPR programs and that Oregon is the first U.S. state expected to be operational soon. Delegates pressed whether consumers would face point‑of‑sale fees. The floor leader said the program is designed so fees are not a separate point‑of‑sale charge; instead, producers would absorb modest per‑unit fees as a cost of doing business. Members noted that producers could still implicitly pass costs into prices, and there is no direct enforcement mechanism to prevent that.

Lawmakers also asked whether the PRO would be a private organization and whether it would employ staff; the floor leader said plans are approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment and the PRO would have paid staff and operating expenses funded from producer fees.

The House adopted the amendments and ordered the bill passed to third reading.","Delegates approved amendments to a bill creating an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging and paper products; discussion focused on whether fees would be passed to consumers, organizational structure, and how other jurisdictions have implemented EPR.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612768,"House advances Tenant Mold Protection Act after hours of clarification on definitions and tenant complaint process",317,1584000,1901000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66&start=1584&end=1901","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66/thumbnail_1584000.jpg","/articles/6612768/Maryland/House-advances-Tenant-Mold-Protection-Act-after-hours-of-clarification-on-definitions-and-tenant-complaint-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612768-333d5625c5108b675ac79f55f9992649/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178698&Signature=BU~pqcT9FSnPrUXYMFDGnAx~s8EyasOMoQKUsaE1hsuTxoLPFnPk5m8GYgWoAJlkwyOA1xQMYvNZ-RuDajedNnfY7ylETZi6o-Rqr0-3GF52YVaNrCrnN3HMsbpu262lJSbZtQuc1IBT9QBvnAT4hef4rr1iIsefWgij0ej~gyaZxSExhNK9AEEkiJmmhtvF3iTgpTFnBjPR46ZPd-uiHVpT9CzT6P2bS5ibJ3kaASUzbyJP9DwrOCpxkNQohVGv3NWmm~9A~GzWfWfg7oy-BS24U2afyiFloq7Obks8DdDMXZCReCgov8Gv4C3z05Vskk2msep6dJA6Mo6lptj~nw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegates debated and advanced a bill that would require landlords to provide information to tenants about mold, handle tenant complaints and conduct assessments, with the Department of the Environment (MDE) to issue regulations on which mold requires remediation.

A committee chair explained that the bill defines mold in the statutory text and instructs MDE to develop standards that identify harmful mold and prescribe remediation steps. \"Mold is defined in the bill...and what the bill does is it requires that the landlord provide information to tenants about mold,\" the committee chair said.

Members asked how the complaint and remediation system would work in practice. The committee chair said a landlord’s internal assessment does not always require a third‑party test; if a tenant disputes a landlord’s determination, the tenant may pursue landlord‑tenant court and courts typically rely on expert reports. Delegates also asked whether the rules would apply to colleges, nursing homes, public housing and military housing; the sponsor said the bill applies where a landlord‑tenant relationship exists and that public housing would be covered.

Lawmakers pressed on timing and procedure: the bill requires an assessment after a tenant complaint and sets a statutory period for landlord response; the committee chair clarified that the assessment does not automatically require a third‑party test and that MDE will issue regulations to define when remediation is required.

After questions and the adoption of committee amendments, the House ordered the bill to third reading.

The bill clarifies obligations for landlords when tenants raise mold concerns and leaves technical standards (when remediation is required and what steps to take) to MDE regulation. Delegates asked staff to ensure the fiscal and implementation impacts — such as whether third‑party testing will be mandated — are clarified for later stages of the bill.","Delegates discussed definitions, complaint handling and remediation timelines in legislation that would require landlords to respond to tenant reports of harmful mold; members asked the sponsor and committee for details about definitions, third‑party testing, and applicability to different housing types.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612769,"House amends Social Equity bill to centralize oversight of cannabis reinvestment fund",179,639000,818000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66&start=639&end=818","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887594-bba13a0ff51a216085d561b57f471b66/thumbnail_639000.jpg","/articles/6612769/Maryland/House-amends-Social-Equity-bill-to-centralize-oversight-of-cannabis-reinvestment-fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612769-c443a5f5da3f4bd81d3aa598421d32ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178698&Signature=jFcLaHmY9qse4xn~9-Ztp9eMEgyaX2i8LHEP3r84DAXlIo65miERF6L7PCLef2gvzO5njy0Dem0S-YKOkeBAcRd0WITm2xBn3VLShDUIYYCjUrd7lFwvCeiCkB11fjMk5j5O73yZtzlJYN2-plP-~6jJl1-QWE7V~BB0lM0TtnwOUjutKGnmIcXAGFRmSMwTJQWfZX5c8wk1swj7ZiTFOcTIisb-YEBDYrZXZIFp77rWfXGdZxrwQe2d~XFi4mKkAn4EASDgwbgKZ0-K7rFzai52fugZnTz0vqCRFbZUxOm6FaJbU6ndC4KhYwqtXX1TLXJ549jolF2qZ~rs4bnnGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House of Delegates adopted amendments to a bill directing how the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund (a portion of adult‑use cannabis sales tax revenue) is distributed and overseen.

The floor leader said the bill, as amended, would “require this new Office of Social Equity to oversee the distribution and the use of local counties, this special fund,” adding the office would train county recipients and community‑based organizations on how to use funds intended for communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.

Members pressed for fiscal clarity. One delegate noted the fiscal note showed an $800,000 allocation for first‑year administrative costs and $1.1 million annually thereafter and asked whether that remains accurate; the floor leader said the fiscal note must be updated because the bill's amendments changed assumptions and promised clarification before third reading. The floor leader also said the Office of Social Equity would sit within the Maryland Cannabis Administration and have its own staff and budget.

Delegates debated how funds would be distributed. The floor leader said the funds would be distributed “equitably based on the number of arrests and charges in each county,” citing Baltimore City as historically having the highest number of arrests related to the war on drugs and therefore receiving a larger share.

The House adopted the committee’s amendments and ordered the bill printed for third reading.

The action resolves language on who administers the local allocation and creates clearer training and oversight responsibilities for the Office of Social Equity while leaving detailed fiscal and implementation figures to be clarified before final passage.","Delegates approved amendments clarifying that the Office of Social Equity will oversee local distribution of a portion of adult-use cannabis sales tax revenue allocated to a Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund; members asked for updated fiscal detail on administrative costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House votes to let state superintendent enforce curriculum standards; debate centers on parental opt‑outs and local control

House passes energy package after hours of debate over reliability, costs and siting rules

House adopts committee changes to producer responsibility bill for packaging and paper products

House advances Tenant Mold Protection Act after hours of clarification on definitions and tenant complaint process

House amends Social Equity bill to centralize oversight of cannabis reinvestment fund